I have started a series of hubs on Superman called "How to Revive the Character". I am aware of the fact that, at the current time, the destiny of the Superman is in limbo as there seems to be a lack of interest in the character as a fictional superhero.
I want to know what your thoughts are on this matter and what are some of the ways to resurrect him so to speak, develop interest in Superman as a character, and not just as an archetype of a moral figure of great power.
I really don't know.
His initial appeal was in being an archetype moral figure of great power-- along with having the alter-ego of an ordinary humble honest working man.
I grew up in the era when Superman, Captain Marvel, Batman and a few other superheroes were only in comic books. They were not as "humanized" as the movies have now made them.
I see. Originally, Superman was very far from the staunch moral figure he is now. In fact, he used to be a violent, brutal, anti-corporation type of vigilante.
He was tough on common criminals and was very much anti-communist.
Today, he is different. I think, there has been a general inability to grasp the character or at least an indifference and lack of understanding of the dynamic that makes him a true character, and not just a stereotype.
Lately, the character seems to have been reduced to his power and very has been done to truly delve into the uniqueness of his heritage and its importance in forming his habits, tastes and personality.
you might find this hub interesting about the Batman character and how his character was revived, there are some references to the Superman character also. it's a good hub.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Dark-Knight … -Franchise
The problem is deeper than that - the hero as a figure has been debunked and has lost its inherent moral authority etc.
This coincides with the loss of moral authority of religion, when Nietsch announced "god is dead" he also pronounced the death of the hero for the same reasons.
I have a poem about this "die for you" which touches on the dying hero.
The underlying issue - whether this goes against your own thoughts or religion or whatever - is that we can now do what heroes traditionally did, and everything seems to rotate around aggression, we can mega-blast whole cities - just nuclear weapons, we have super-vision it is just google earth, we have devices to do almost everything that heroes once did. The same goes for god who only ever did the same things we are told.
And we are left with a gun toting strong man (or woman) blasting away at what ? and for who? while the real heroes are giving their lives for their children unseen in crappy marriages, working in dead end crappy jobs and putting up with bullying and harassment to keep just enough money coming in to suport their families.
The picture I would put up if I could use Youtube would be of an arab woman laying over her children to protect them with her body while soldiers shot all around the place - you tell me who is the hero?
that's pretty deep AP...I'll have to read your poem if you made it into a hub....the visual of the woman protecting her children is pretty powerful....so how do you reinvent him?
I agree with most of this, although I think some of the point about us being able to do it too (with nukes etc.) starts to wander off a bit.
The sense of "right" being an absolute I think is the essence of what you are saying, particularly at the beginning of this. When there was A truth, and A right way of doing things, Superman was a hero figure. He could kick the crap out of a thug and everyone LOVED him for it. NOW we have relativism and the story of HOW the thug became a THUG, and how history brought the thug's family to its present plight.. all that can be woven back around to face "us" the viewer who used to root for Superman but who must now blame ourselves for the reasons behind the Thug being a thug. In modern social climes, it is OUR fault that Superman is going to punch that guy in the face.
So, with the loss of God and therefore an absolute truth, we have no truth, only moral relativism, and therefore we have two sides to every story instead of one. From there, politics unfolds and everyone has their tragic anecdote to tell. There can no longer be heroes, only victims.
The reason Superman doesn't work is because hero narratives don't work in that kind of environment. You have to tell victim stories instead. That's why modern "heroes" are always guys who some strawman badguy killed his wife and babies, so we root for that victim to get his guns or his ninja skills trained up so he can go get revenge. Or we tell stories where guys/women have some strawman corporation poison their spouse/babies or do something evil; then the guy/gal can figure out a heroic way to take the villainous corporation down. Etc.
It's all victim based today. Superman is not a victim in anyway, so, he fails to appeal to modern readers. Without God backing it up, strength in our world is associated with corruption.
So ,we have to look for real-life heroes.
My Dad was hard-working, quiet, humble, modest man, though fun-loving and witty... more of Clark Kent than Superman.
When he chased a creep (who bothered a 13-year-old me) out of a movie theater with a threat of severe bodily harm. I knew he was my hero.
I'm not certain what you mean by "reinventing" Superman, or what you mean when you describe his destiny as being in "limbo." Most comic book characters suffer from the "illusion of change." In other words, their stories are written to make it look like significant events have taken place in the lives of the hero, but by the end of the story, we have come full circle and the hero is unchanged. Temporary changes may last several years, but in the end Superman is who and what he has always been.
Superman's character is very much a product of his origins, and those origins are now decades old. It would indeed be interesting to revamp the character--what would he be like if he were created in 2009 instead of 1939? No one really has the clout to take 80 years of comics stories and pretend they didn't exist as a way to modernize him. In the mid-1980's, John Byrne attempted to revamp Superman for DC Comics. He got rid of his past as Superboy, turned Luthor from a scientist into a businessman, and ignored the super-pets and other Kryptonians. In the end, however, Superman was still the same.
I think there has been plenty of interest in the character of late. Television has aired "Smallville" for the last decade and has added considerable details to his character--whether those details are liked or not. "Superman Returns" was in theaters a few years ago, and I read the main reason a sequel wasn't made was that studio executives wished to make a darker movie, similar to the Batman offerings.
I will be interested in seeing what conclusions you draw in your articles about Superman.
actually mike, i think you make a lot of valid points, and i agree with you on most of them. EXCEPT, i think i need to correct you one little thing here. Another reason why D.C. and WB didn't make a sequel to "Superman Returns" was because the film cost like over 200 million dollars to make and they barely broke even at the box office. In fact, they had to rely on their third party merchandising to make any sort of profit from "Superman Returns." As anyone who follows how hollywood likes to market movies will tell you that merchandising is supposed to be the icing on the cake for them so to speak. NOT as a means of profiting off the movie entirely. that's why they didn't make a sequel to "superman returns", as it didn't generate enough money.
having said that though, I don't think you can change too much about superman, as he's practically an iconic figure, and you can't divert too much away from that, unless you want to ruin what made him an iconic character to begin with.
However, I don't know if anyone on hubpages knows this besides me, and those that read my superhero assemble hubs (sorry if it sounds like im self promoting, but im not. just making a point). Christopher Nolan, the director of "Inception" and "The Dark Knight", is producing the next superman movie aptly dubbed "Superman: Man of Steel." Very little information is out about the film right now, but Nolan is said to be taking on a mentor type role to the lucky director that directs the next Superman movie.
Another thing worth noting here, is that Nolan did bring up a very intriguing concept about Superman a while back. "I tend to agree with Michael Caine about what he said about the difference between Superman and Batman. Superman is a representation of how America sees itself, while Batman is a representation of how the rest of the world views America." These were his exact words here folks, and it gets even interesting as David Goyer, the writer for the last two Batman films, said he knew EXACTLY how Nolan could approach Superman. To quote Goyer, "If your all powerful like Superman, then why do bad things still happen?" Which is exactly what the next superman needs to be about. I mean think about it. Superman has always been a symbolic representation of how America sees itself as being all powerful, but bad things still happen anyway. Like WWII and 9/11. if we're the most powerful nation in the world or one of the most powerful, then why the hell do bad things still happen to us? Why couldn't we stop it? anyway, that's what Goyer thinks how Nolan could approach Superman, and he loved it. Even WB ate it up when they heard the pitch.
Therefore, I can't wait to see how Nolan handles Superman. Another thing I hope he improves on is the interpretation of Clark Kent. Seriously, I don't know why people have it in their minds that Clark was a bumbling nerd. In the comics, he was an average guy like you and me, as Clark Kent. It's only in the movies they portray him as a nerdish steve urkell type. which frankly pisses me off because that's not how Clark Kent is supposed to be. Just watch a few episodes of "lois and clark", as that did a much better job portraying Clark Kent, than any of the Superman movies. Although "Superman 1 and 2" still both rocked though.
Hi, Stevennix, thanks for the info. I knew Superman Returns didn't make the studio big bucks, but I didn't know it was that bad. If that's what it took to reach the break-even point, I can understand why they held off making a sequel and looked for a new direction.
The idea of an all-powerful Superman not ridding the world of all evils and suffering has always been a valid point. A few decades ago there was a Superman comic that has since become famous titled, "Must There Be a Superman?" In it the Guardians of the Universe accused Superman of doing too much for Earth, resulting in a cultural lag that stunted our development. Not only was Superman solving problems that kept the human race from developing a self-reliance, he actually prevented earthlings from developing the will for self-reliance. He realized earth must solve their problems unaided in order to progress. In the end he refused to rebuild an impoverished town, despite the protests of its inhabitants. Why do bad things happen when an all-powerful being is nearby? They are supposed to happen to allow us to develop as a species.
It was a great moment in comics history, but overall even this wonderful story didn't change much. I realize that isn't quite the angle you were pointing toward by referencing a direction for the next movie, I just mentioned it as an aside. I am sure a new way of looking at Superman will be fascinating, and however it comes out, I will be eager to see what happens.
Thanks for the fascinating information, I appreciate it.
wow, i didn't realize there was a saga like that in the comic books a while back. it sounds pretty interesting. personally, i think Bryan Singer had the right idea with "Superman Returns" making it more of a continuation rather than a full blown origin story, as we've already seen his origin already done pretty damn well. However, i think Singer's main mistake was that he focused too much on making it a homage to the Donner version of Superman, that he forgot to modernize and put his own take on the character instead. something that i still think to this day was a mistake.
Stevennix, I agree with you completely about Superman Returns. We certainly didn't need another telling of his origin, but the references to the original Superman movie were so overt they became distracting in a way--particularly when he's still reminding Lois not to smoke and commenting on flying being the safest way to travel. Did they have to actually make Superman say the same thing he said to her in 1978???
Yeah, the "Must There Be a Superman?" story was especially good. The idea of a god-like being unable to save the world from evil had to be addressed sooner or later. If that is the focus of a new Superman movie, it is a completely worthwhile direction.
I can agree with much of this except the reason why Smallville did ok, if not super-well. One aspect of culture reaching a 'dead-end' if you pardon the pun, or a sticking point, can be seen in the retro fashion where we go back and try to remake the past, Smallville (as far I am aware) is purely a kids programme that goes 'back' to Superman's youth. I say kids because most adults like and follow these things also - don't you ?
This going back is how I see where fundamental religionsvget their following, the desire to go back to some imagined 'good' time that in reality was not that good, even though history wrote it that way.
To see a true remake of Superman I would expect to see different super powers, maybe the ability to see things for what they really are - then we would see him battling 'bad' stuff that everybody is convinced is 'good' stuff - because they have been told so by tv and the rest of the media. He would then be the good guy but that everyone sees as bad in a black hat kind of way.
Alternate Poet, you raise an a great point. It is an interesting idea to completely redo Superman and have his powers and focus differ from the established norm. It's hard to say what type of character he would be. The clarity to battle true "evils" that perhaps aren't perceived by the rest of mankind as evil would be an intriguing concept, well worth exploring. Could even a Superman have such faith in himself that he battled against conventional wisdom for what he perceived as right? A nice concept, but would it still be Superman? Perhaps it would now be Adam Warlock or even Conan the Barbarian.... Having asked this last question does not diminish the appeal of the idea for me. Nice take on the idea.
Interesting. As far as relating the death of God to the superhero I would say that I partially disagree with your assessment. In reality, the superhero is itself symptomatic of the death of God. At the centrality of the superhero mythology is the idea that humanity is left to its own and has to fend for itself. In this reality, there is allowed for the existence of someone who is above the average individual, the superhero who by his mental and physical attributes can be a savior of some sort.
As far as superman goes, I have to say that the lack of interest in him as a character - I would like to say that to the average person, it can be agreed that superman only exists as an archetype which is why he does so poorly in movies and why the latest installment of the franchise is currently taking a lot of time to take off - stems from the celebration of the anti-hero, or at least the vigilante, supposedly complex, interesting and multi-faceted of which batman is the consummate image. In my view, what is lacking is a spirit of humanity, and even of innocence which superman has incarnated since the 1980's.
As such, the reality is that there is to this day more interest in spiderman and batman as characters compared to superman. And that I think, is a certain fact.
The reason he is out of favor is that he has gone away from his original premise. The simpleness of the character was part of the allure. Now it's all about political correctness and his feminine side. He is Superman, he is fallible in his judgement. The yellow sun gave him super physical powers, it did not give him godlike wisdom or intelligence. If he tried to fix all the world's woes, he'd never have time for a life. The premise by the original writers was that sometimes you can't fix everything. Sometime there is suffering. All the superheroes in the world can not change that. The problem is not to many people comprehend that.
Folks, I am usually not prolific in forum feeds, and I must say I've enjoyed discussing Superman with everyone. However, it is nearly 2:00 AM here in Kansas, and I need to get to bed. I will look for the thread sometime tomorrow if you all added any more commentary.
You do not need to re-invent any character, you just need to re-think him. Has anyone ever looked at Superman from his point of view? What must it be like living in a world of balsa where you must always be careful because everything and everyone is so easy to break? What must it be like to be always vigilant even when walking down the street so that the slightest thing does not give you away - eg someone barging into you and bouncing off? What must it feel like to be in love with someone but never able to consummate that love because you would tear her apart with your first pelvic thrust? That must be a very lonely existence. Then again, what must it be like to just fly away from the Earth, land on the moon and look back at the Earth for as long as you want without the need for a spacesuit? And consider his invulnerability: how would he react if a plague swept the world killing millions but he was untouched?
However, the problem with Superman does not lie with Superman but with comics. Stan Lee has described them as the equivalent of Soap operas and this has been their downfall. In real soaps, actors age and eventually retire. This allows for a throughput of characters and stories. Not so in comics. If Reed Richards was just 21 years old in 1961, he would be 80 this year. But he is not. So we are stuck with the same characters fighting the same supervillains, year in, year out. Eventually, it has to become stale, especially as all sense of jeopardy is removed by characters surviving impossible deaths to come back again and again. Instead of new stories, we get characters being rebooted where the previous history is written off and they are restarted so as to go through all of the same kind of stories, they have already covered. What is needed is a group where characters can be added and removed as the story unfolds. In my opinion, the two most successful have been "Doom Patrol" and "Legion of Super Heroes" who have both suffered casualties and have stayed dead because it is not about individuals. In other words, if a character like Superman has run his course, perhaps he should be allowed to retire gracefully
I like this train of thought.
The other thing I was going to say, is make Superman current. Like on the WB's Smallville. The only TV show I have to watch every week.
I like your post a lot and agree with many of the things you have said. However, I think I disagree in the sense that you imply a finitude in human creativity and a limit to a character's appeal. I think there is much in the lore of Superman that has not been explored.
I really think that few writers today really care about Superman as a character. Too often, they try to reduce him to his power. I think that, there is much potential in Superman's Kryptonian background, which has not been exploited enough on the big screen. The problem with Superman is the image we have of him: which is that of a moralizing figure, whereas I see the character as a benevolent, compassion figure who seeks to always help and even save people. He is not a messiah, but he is more of a helper, someone who shows up, helps and then leaves.
I believe that if the moralizing part of Superman's were reconfigured and his Kryptonian background incorporated more into his life, there would be a great improvement in the character.
For example, I want a Superman who is dynamic, who can learn from his mistakes and not just barge into without thinking twice. He should be proactive, and seek remedies for example to kryptonite. Or he should attempt to incorporate his Kryptonian past into his life. He should seek to develop his mental powers ...
There are a host of ideas that come to mind concerning the character. I think he truly is a character whom people can relate and some of the things you said concerning his uniqueness are on point.
As far as my favorite Superman incarnations go, I like Jack Kirby's Superman for he exudes power. I like Kurt Busiek's writing of Up, Up and Away. I also like for Tomorrow with Jim Lee. And most of all, I like the Alex Ross Superman stories, especially Kingdom Come. So, I think there is much to choose from as far as different versions of the character.
By the way, I wrote a series of four hubs called "How to Revive the Character". You may read it if you are interested.
Why not put a hole in Superman's underwear this time! We can call it 'THE SUPPER HOLE'... which is capable of EXPLODING immense amount of ENERGY in the form of FAR*T!!! A brand New Super Power for A brand new Super man!
Didn't Grant Morrison already kinda do the Superman overhaul awhile back?
off topic BUT - Ive always wanted to see Superman/Doomsday hit the Big Screen - the animated version didnt do anything for me.
The series leading to the rise and fall of Superman delved very deeply into the character of Superman - including weaknesses and alternate possibilities (The Supermen)
Hopefully, Nolan can make a great Superman film - not sure that a great Superman film has ever been made!
If I had the power..thats how I would reinvent superman.
A trilogy - opening with the massive doomsday/superman battle - then flashbacks explaining how the battle started - and who Doomsday is. (Nolan is good at non-linear)
Then the following films - showing the Supermen - mystery of who is the real superman - return of Kal-el
I dont know, I really enjoyed that series and the actually still have the hardbound book and the death of superman comic - I felt that was a reinvention of Superman.
no great superman film has ever been made? are you mad? did you not see how great the first two films with christopher reeves were? sure, clark kent and lex luthor could've been handled a lot better, but it was still a great first two films. plus, if you ever see "Superman II: Donner's Cut", that one really kicked major arse there.
I agree, Superman 2 was ace for it's time...as a kid of the 80's it was a film that was a blockbuster and they did the best they could at the time, although we didn't know any different special effects wise, which means certain things have dated slightly, but yeah, the site of that bus being hurled towards superman was just amazing.
Although in todays film making they could make a kick arse Superman movie again, with the right script and story
i agree. however, i think the main problem is that Donner did such a great job establishing who superman was in the first two films, that most hollywood directors feel an obligation to uphold to his original version. which is wrong, as donner even admitted he had to change a lot of the things about the superman mythology just to make it work on the big screen. however, that's why im glad nolan is producing the next superman movie, as he's not easily intimidated by stuff like that nor is he known to try to copy anyone else out there. no, he wasn't afraid to mix things up when people were asking him how he was going to uphold to burton's original version of batman. now it seems he has a great chance to do it again with superman. at least i hope....
Yeah, I think reproducing what came before is a mistake, as they tried to give nods to the originals in the last Superman movie and that was fine, but it tied itself to them movies in a way, in a way that it couldn't be it's own movie....
So a reinvention is needed and I hope Chris Nolan can pull it off.....
i'm sure he will, as the concept of what he has planned sounds interesting. idk if you read my previous posts on this forum already, but it seems nolan's concept for the next superman is simple. "if the world has an all powerful god like figure protecting it, then why do bad things still happen? why do people still murder and rape each other? why is there still problems in society if we have a superman?" anyways, that what nolan says his concept will be for the next superman movie, which to me sounds great. i can't wait to see it.
Im not mad. Im critical.
Both those films were big screen pop culture rewrites of the Superman character with almost no reference to the DC Universe.
They may have been good popcorn films - Gene Hackman, marlon Brando - hard to go completely wrong. But they were not good "Superman" movies. "Superman" has a strong origin story ..but no good Superman level super battles.
Superman II - with the entire DC universe to pick from why would you make up 3 70's punk rock looking Kryptonians as your supervillians! garbage...
Plus - they are not great examples of SFX (even for the time) and have a very campy feel.
Ill look into the Donner cut though.
We are at the level of special effects and cgi mastery that the comic book heroes could really be made well...but for some reason we only get one side or the other - good story/lame effects or great effects/ lame story.
I dont get it! The damn stories are already written! It takes talent to screw them up !
yeah, but you have to take in mind that BEFORE Donner's first Superman movie was released that hollywood generically thought of superhero films as a joke, and all superhero films were made campy because they were viewed as stories for children. Therefore, "Superman: the movie" changed all that, and created the first legitimate superhero film. A film that wasn't overly campy. You may think it was campy, but i don't. No, it was a great story for the first two films.
second of all, who says "superman: the movie" needed a cool fight scene anyway? the story was so rich and thought provoking that it didn't need it. sure, it would've been nice to see superman punch someone in the first movie, but not at the expense of a great story. besides, i always say that a great story will make up for dated special effects and lack of action sequences any day. just look at the original 1940's king kong or the original war of the worlds. those were great stories. sure the special effects are dated by today's standards, and the remakes feature a helluva a lot better fight and special effect sequences. that still doesn't mean the originals' stories weren't so much better.
besides, would you rather if donner inserted some random pointless scene for the hell of it like the "matrix reloaded" did? where neo was fighting like over a 100 agent smiths for no other reason than he could. when in reality, he could've flown away the whole time from the fight to avoid it. and not to mention the fact, the fight sequence didn't do anything to enhance the story content at all. would you rather donner would've inserted a random fight scene for no other reason than for the hell of it like the "matrix reloaded" did? or would you rather have a great story? personally, a great story beats out a great fight scene EVERY TIME!
as for superman II, are you kidding me? sure, they could've gone with one of superman's trademark villains. however, they were still pretty cool. plus, the story was still just as great too in the sequel. as it presented the concept of a hero having to choose between the woman he loves and the world that desperately needs him. giving up the thing he wants the most, to do what's right. that's the epitomy of superman. he always does the right thing. even if it comes at the cost of doing what he wants. plus, d.c. comics didn't agree with you obviously. as years later, they did create those same super villains, from "superman II", into the comic books eventually too. therefore, it seems they liked the idea of general zod. as did i. as it was cool to see three beings with superman's powers, but none of his morals.
as to your other statement:
"We are at the level of special effects and cgi mastery that the comic book heroes could really be made well...but for some reason we only get one side or the other - good story/lame effects or great effects/ lame story."
are you kidding me here? seriously, your killing me here. have you not seen "Batman Begins?" what about "The Dark Knight?" what about "kick-ass?" or wait how about "Iron Man?" plus, i can name you other superhero films that DID have great stories and special effects in no particular order:
1. batman begins
2. dark knight
3. iron man
6. spider-man 2
that's just to name a few.
eh- exceptions to the rule
1. batman begins
2. dark knight
3. iron man
6. spider-man 2
9. batman: mask of the phantasm (wouldnt include animated - but the recent red hood batman story is awesome)
Totally agree, great movies - especially would include Batman begins as the best to date and would add the most recent Hulk.
I think the list of shitty superhero films would be much- much longer.
As for fight scenes - necessary! of course, If I watch a Superhero film about Superman I want a freekin Super battle like the originally referenced superman/doomsday or anything involving the Galactic Powers of the DC universe.
Should action take the place of story?... no - why is it either/or? Yes, the matrix battle sucked. So lets not copy that.
I could care less if DC created the Krypton Villains in print later - they also created Krypto Dog, Super Girl - Super Ice cream cone and Rudolph the red nosed reindeer with light saber nose beam ... the majority of Comic characters are crap.. Superman is legend worthy of the Lord of The Rings treatment.
Valid point, that the first Superman film created a change in thought of the market for superheroes ..Im not sure that the original superman tv series could really be seen as just for children though.
Adults read comics and graphic novels - I would like to see a Superman Movie that reflects that.
who said that it had to be either or? i was just trying to make a point that just because a movie doesn't have a fight scene, doesn't equal automatically bad. that's all i was trying to point out.
yeah, i agree with you about the doomsday/superman story line, as that was one of my favorite comic book sagas growing up. it's a shame tim burton got fired from the superman project, back in the nineties, as he originally wanted to do the whole death and return of superman. however, his writer kevin smith and him couldn't agree on how to approach the film, AND the studio felt it was costing them too much money during preproduction, so they canceled it. it's a shame too.
personally, i think singer had the right idea to make it a continuation in his film, as we've seen superman's origin done already on screen. however, i didn't like how he made the entire film a freaking homage and ripped off almost every single line and story elements from the first superman movie, starring reeves. that was completely wrong on his part. personally, it's a shame im not a writer or a director in hollywood, as i know EXACTLY how i would've done superman returns, if i had any power to do it.
i would still keep the concept of superman leaving earth and being away for years, while making it somewhat of a sequel to "superman II." and yes i would still keep his son in there too. the only thing i would've changed were the villains and the plot a bit. one, lex luthor would still be one of the villains, but he would've been more along the lines of an untouchable billionaire that literally OWNS all of metropolis. my thoughts are, if lex knew exactly where the fortress of solitude was, and could've had access to technology specs thousands of years beyond his time. plus, superman was gone for a long time too. therefore, wouldn't it make more sense for him to..idk...steal some of that advanced tech and patent it under his own name. Hence, profiting off of it and turning into a billionaire by the time superman returned. i would've used that angle to have lex become rich again versus the concept of him swindling an old broad out of her money. Then i'd make lex one of the biggest weapon contractors in the world, while selling some of his weapons illegally to terrorists on the side. politicians and half of metropolis at this point would be owned by lex, as he would own the police literally. superman would find out about his illegal activities, but would have no proof against lex to convict him. plus, lex would own the law, so superman wouldn't be able to stop lex without breaking the law to get to him.
as for superman coming back with his drama with lois and the kid and her new lover...blah...blah..blah..that still would've been there. however, my thoughts are why did he come back alone? couldn't it had been easily written to where some alien follows him back? idk...someone like say...BRAINIAC. yes, i would've introduced brainiac as the main adversary in "superman returns." brainiac would continue to absorb all the information he wants on earth, then tries to destroy it. superman kicks his butt and kills him...or least he thinks. however, being the cunning guy he is, brainiac would make sure that the android superman kills is nothing more than a decoy. a decoy to hid himself as he implants himself into lexcorp computer systems. setting up for the second film.
second film story:
ten years after superman returns, jason kent (superman's son) is a teenager now...about 16. he knows his real father is superman, but hates him. thinking that his father abandoned him, as he sees superman as nothing more than a jerk. although the rest of us love him. lois is still in love with superman, but she doesn't want to break richard's heart still.
lex would find out about brainiac being inside of lexcorp computers, and would try to use brainiac for his own financial gain. while brainiac would secretly be plotting to use lexcorp resources to take over the world. brainiac would offer a truce between him and luthor by saying he could build a machine so powerful...it could kill superman. lex would agree reluctantly. then brainiac would use all the data he collected from battling superman in the last movie, and create the ultimate fighting machine...doomsday.
right around this time, superman and his son would be arguing and jason would say something along the lines..."I hate you dad!" or something like that. then superman finds out about doomsday and tries to stop him. jason being the naive kid he is would feel bad about seeing his father being beaten to a pulp by doomsday as he seems too strong....even for superman. jason would rush to the scene, without having full control of his powers yet, then would take on doomsday with his dad. unfortunately, since he still doesn't have full use of his powers yet, he ends up getting more in the way than he does ACTUALLY HELP superman stop doomsday. this causes superman to summon the last bit of his strength to not only protect his son, but to stop this monster. in the end, they would both die in the comics. lois lane would still hold superman and cry over it. jason would just stand there feeling guilty as he would immediately think that if he didn't get in his father's way or if he had been stronger, he could've saved him. while regretting all the hateful things he said to his father while he was alive.
a few months later, the crime in metropolis goes up, and lex luthor continues to be a corporate giant. still doing shady deals, but nobody could ever touch him or link him to the crime. jason kent then decides to take up the mantle of superman and becomes superman later superboy. meanwhile a weapons developer by the name of john henry irons works designing weapons for lexcorp, and finds out about lex's shady deals selling these same weapons to terrorists and rival gang members. so he uses what knowledge he has to become steel, but he calls himself superman. hence, the reign of superman would begin. jason and john would then eventually team up to take on lexcorp and try to stop lex luthor from selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. if that wouldn't be bad enough, lex would try to unveil his latest creation, metallo. a cyborg that supposedly so powerful, that the earth's military would be rendered obsolete. however, it would go wrong, and superboy and steel would have to stop him.
fourth movie: the mysterious eradicator superman and cyborg superman would be introduced. superboy and steel both don't trust the two new mysterious supermen. however, they're all forced to work together, as the radiation from the kryptonian technology being used in war would cause a genetic mutation in a fallen soldier...and he would become parasite. parasite would grow to become so powerful, that it takes all four supermen to beat him.
fifth movie: lex starts to have to deal with legal battles over the fiasco with parasite, but the law and media still can't touch him, as he owns it still. however, at this point, the cyborg superman would show his true colors and go rogue. effectively almost killing and beating up every one of the other supermen. lex would be shocked by this, as he learns that brainiac was behind the cyborg superman's creation the whole time. he tricked lex into helping him, and takes lex luthor as a hostage.
sixth movie: the three other good supermen regroup and take on the cyborg superman again. however, this time the real superman returns. his powers almost non existent, but he still offers to help anyway. they all try to gang up on the cyborg, but he proves too strong for all of them. however, the original superman manages to get his powers back just in time to kick the cyborg's a**. before the cyborg dies, he confesses that brainiac was behind the whole grand scheme. setting up for the seventh movie
seventh movie: all four supermen take on brainiac. however, this time, he's grown even more powerful than before and it takes all four supermen to stop him.
anyways, that's what i would've done. however, im not a screen writer or director, so what do i know? however, that's what i would've done if i had any say in the movies story line. sorry for the long winded response though, as you can tell. im very passionate about this genre. lol.
damn...you got waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too much time on your hands there buddy. no wonder, you can't get laid. your too busy writing in forums!
Yeah this comic book story was an event of it's time and it's up there when people ask where where you when this happened sort of thing.
I know in Smallville they tried to touch on it slightly, but that show is an alternate reality version of the Superman mythlogy and doesn't really count!!
I actually liked the casting of the last Superman flick (Superman Returns) aside from Lois perhaps. I do believe they need to develop a better story and mix it in with an epic battle. Why not? Superman is not Batman, Ironman, Spiderman, or even the Hulk. His abilities supersedes any other, and it would be exciting to see him defeat a monstrous foe.
Actually, I can't wait till they nail down a great Superman story so that they can crank out some JLA flicks.
On a side note, I hope Green Lantern is good...
I like Brandon Routh a lot. I think it is disappointing that Nolan has not decided to sign him on-board his project. I hope Man of Steel, turns out to be a good rendition of Superman.
And as far as the title of this thread, I meant to write re-imagine not re-invent. My fault ...
yeah, i was sad to see routh not recast to be superman again, but i know why he's not though. if they did cast him, people would assume that it's a sequel to "superman returns", so i think wb is trying to avoid that right now, as that film didn't do so well financially. therefore, im not surprised they're trying to find someone else to play superman. personally, i'd like to see guy pearce or james caviezel play superman. i would say brendan fraser too, but he's too old to play the part now, and way out of shape. of course if they were to make the story based on "kingdom come", and fraser agreed to get back into the same shape he was when he made "george of the jungle", then i'd say yeah he'd be perfect. however, it's going to be interesting to see what happens.
Changed his costume, it is too tight specially down there, plus make him wear the underwear under the costume -- change the color to like gray not red blue and remove the S, we know already that he is Superman! smile ..
here's a full article i found that shows exactly what nolan's plans for the upcoming batman and superman movies if anyone is interested.
http://www.beyondhollywood.com/christop … -batman-3/
Okay, just an opinion here.
If there is going to be a revamp of the character, then they will, obviously) update the character as was done by John Byrne in the mid 80's. How that would be accomplished, I can't say because people have a different take on societal standards and norms anymore. Personally I would go with a "disgruntled" being, torn between doing the right thing because it's right and not because he doesn't care for certain aspects of people's accepted personalities (like say he hates Lady Gaga but is forced into a situation where he can either save the twit or swallow his pride and be the hero.) Stories can become much more complex when introducing the converse...him wishing to beat the donkey p*ss out of a given individual but is kept from that goal. So much can be done in the way of things in this circumstance in either standing.
As for the uniform? I will always love the classic look, and have lived through 40 years of changes to it. If a revamp does occur, they should set to their rabid fans for a redesign in a contest. Let the fans create and they decide the best single (or maybe multiple) look(s) for the man of steel to use until the classic look is (once again) reintroduced.
Superman has been redone several times but the best revamp, in my opinion, was Red Son. The whole idea is that he was launched from Krypton 6 minutes later and instead of landing in America and raised by maw and paw Kent, he was raised by Stalin. Suddenly the wholesome Man Of Steel becomes the world worst dictator of all time and yet believes he is doing what is right because it was how he was raised and what he understood. Lex Luther rises as the hero of the story and and so on and so forth.
This I think was the best re invention of him. It would make for a great three part movie.
Superman waxes and wanes as do most comic book heroes - he's at his worse as an indestructible messianic hero - I quite like the maverick interpretations, such as Lex Luthor - Man Of Steel, which explains Luthor's contempt for Superman, - that an alien saviour stops man achieving his own salvation - etc - Stories with thought rather than a fifty panel punch up help define the Superman mythos
by Alem Belton6 years ago
I have to admit I love the whole Superman story and think he is a more interesting character but, as far as who is the better hero I have to go with Batman. Here is why:Batman has no super powers at all, yet he...
by Don Ship7 years ago
Who is your favourite super hero?
by Marc Lee22 months ago
What do you think of the Batman/Superman movie? Do you have a favorite character?
by Linda Bilyeu2 years ago
If you could date a comic book hero, which one would you choose?I would choose my favorite super hero...The Incredible Hulk. I'd be sure not to annoy him or make him mad! It would also be nice to have my own personal...
by David Trujillo Uribe11 months ago
Which is your favorite superhero animated film?Superman Doomsday was incredible as was Hulk vs Wolverine and Thor. Which is your favorite and do you think they are better than the Hollywood superhero films?
by Steven Escareno6 years ago
As some of you may know, I wrote a hub on this topic over a year ago. For years, the Seigel family has been fighting DC/WB in the courts regarding the copyright issues of the famous Superman character. You...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.